0

Some air forces in the world do not use twin-engine jets at all. For instance, Pakistan. Even though Pakistan could import twin-engine jets from China at a very cheap price, they never did that.

What is the basic disadvantage of twin-engine fighter jets over single-engine ones?

Do they cost more because of maintenance?

user366312
  • 868
  • 1
  • 5
  • 20
  • Which planes a country decides to buy depends on their specific needs and budget. It is not as simple as "one plane is better than another" – 60levelchange Jan 29 '21 at 15:21
  • First of all it's a lot safer when one engine fails if you have two. Also since the availability of engine thrust is few and far apart, sometimes one big engine isn't enough and you have to use two smaller ones. – user3528438 Jan 29 '21 at 15:25
  • Also I'm not sure what twin engine fighter China has to offer at the moment. J-8 and JH-7 are pretty awful fighters. J-6 was OK at the time and was (still is?) in PAF service. J-11 and FC-31 are too expensive for PAF's budget. The only viable option is Hongdu L-15 trainer? The thing is, China only have engines at one thrust class, so PLAAF only have either twin engine heavyweight or single engine middleweight in service. There's no twin engine middleweight in PLAAF service like mig -29 and f/a-18 simply because there's no Chinese domestic engines of this class. – user3528438 Jan 29 '21 at 15:36
  • 1
    Maintenance cost. Two engines mean twice as much work in engine overhauls, but the difference to single engine airplanes gets smaller as fighters get stuffed with electronics more and more. – Peter Kämpf Jan 29 '21 at 15:47
  • Twice as many engines means twice as many failures. – MikeB Jan 29 '21 at 16:38
  • @MikeBrockington actually more than twice as many, because a single engine has more redundant parts built-in which are not added to each engine in a twin. But the consequences of failure are much less severe for twins. – Peter Kämpf Jan 29 '21 at 20:43

0 Answers0